"Although there is, more often than not, agreement that we as humans have, by nature, such attributes as ‘aggressive’, we, at the same time, also agree that we ‘should NOT’ be aggressive, or at least that our aggression should NOT result in violence. Culture, in the form of laws and customs, is (perhaps) designed to provide for such channels, i.e. for what we ‘should BE’.

Our ‘consciousness’ (apparently distinguishing us from other animals) of what we are, on the one hand, and what we perceive ourselves to actually be, on the other hand, enable us to ponder that which we are not but which we CAN be. The question remains, however, whether we really can (successfully) engage in an enterprise of becoming or whether any 'becoming what we are not' is but an illusion and we are doomed to accept what we are as animals.

1. Can we intelligently (or otherwise) design ourselves as individuals and/or our society as our collective ‘self’, to change from what we are towards what we think we ought to be?’ (‘transhumanism’ ? :) or do we have to accept ourselves as what we are?2. Does our consciousness of what we ARE necessarily encourage us to BECOME what we are not?3. Does accepting ourselves as what we are mean embracing Social Darwinism?4. If we agree that we should become something that we are not, how can we as Humanists know what that thing OUGHT TO BE without a belief in any divine revelation (a God-/god-sent plan)?